Re: current A.6 draft
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Focussing on aesthetics: right now the only two supermajority ratios
> > possible are 2:1 and 3:1 -- the numbers 2 and 3 are easy to represent.
> > Asking for something more general, without specifying what that more
> > general thing is going to solve, invites all sort of complexity having
> > to do with the [non-existant] possibilities.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:25:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And you can anyway change your n:m ratio with a n/m:1 ratio, so this
> should be a transparent change to the voting system.
That's indeed one of the possibilities I considered. But, of course,
whether or not this is the right way to address the problem would depend
on what the actual problem was.
> You would have to
> rewrite your below algorithm though, altough i think you can handle it
> even without using floats, by multiplying N(A) by n and N(B) by m (where
> B is the default option.
Or n, in n:1 could be made a floating point number without changing
the algorithm. But maybe that's completely wrong and something else
should be done.
> > Is there another reason for introducing that complexity?
>
> It gives more flexibility for supermajorities, apart from the 66% and
> 75% that corresponds to 2:1 and 3:1.
I think we can agree that there's lots of potential ways of doing
things different and that each of those different ways could have
different justifications and different kinds of simplicity or complexity.
But without a reason to pick one over the other we could spend days or
weeks talking about this without reaching a meaningful conclusion.
--
Raul
Reply to: